Options
Senator wants to be sworn in on the Quran. Unamarican?
darkcrow
Posts: 1,102
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-01-muslim-lawmaker_x.htm
Newly elected Muslim lawmaker under fire
Posted 12/1/2006 6:58 AM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions | Subscribe to stories like this
Enlarge By Tim Dillon, USA TODAY
Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison has caused a stir after choosing to take his oath of office with his hand on a Quran.
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The first Muslim elected to Congress hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his act of allegiance has already been criticized by a conservative commentator.
In a column posted Tuesday on the conservative website Townhall.com, Dennis Prager blasted Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison's decision to take the oath of office Jan. 4 with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book.
"He should not be allowed to do so," Prager wrote, "not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American culture."
He said Ellison, a convert from Catholicism, should swear on a Christian Bible — which "America holds as its holiest book. … If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."
The post generated nearly 800 comments on Townhall.com and sparked a tempest in the conservative blogosphere. Many who posted comments called the United States a Christian country and said Muslims are beginning to gain too much influence. Others wrote about the separation of church and state and said the Constitution protects all religions.
Dave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, "The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about."
Colling said Ellison's office has received hundreds of "very bigoted and racist" e-mails and phone calls since Prager's column appeared. "The vast majority said, 'You should resign from office if you're not willing to use the book our country was founded on,' " Colling said.
"Requiring somebody to take an oath of office on a religious text that's not his" violates the Constitution, said Kevin Hasson, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Members of the House of Representatives traditionally raise their right hands and are sworn in together on the floor of the chamber. The ritual sometimes seen as the swearing-in is actually a ceremonial photo op with the speaker of the House that usually involves a Bible.
"They can bring in whatever they want," says Fred Beuttler, deputy historian of the House.
Prager, who is Jewish, wrote that no Mormon elected official has "demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon." But Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, carried a volume of Mormon scriptures that included the Bible and the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in ceremony in 1997.
Prager, who hosts a radio talk show, could not be reached for comment.
Newly elected Muslim lawmaker under fire
Posted 12/1/2006 6:58 AM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions | Subscribe to stories like this
Enlarge By Tim Dillon, USA TODAY
Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison has caused a stir after choosing to take his oath of office with his hand on a Quran.
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The first Muslim elected to Congress hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his act of allegiance has already been criticized by a conservative commentator.
In a column posted Tuesday on the conservative website Townhall.com, Dennis Prager blasted Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison's decision to take the oath of office Jan. 4 with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book.
"He should not be allowed to do so," Prager wrote, "not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American culture."
He said Ellison, a convert from Catholicism, should swear on a Christian Bible — which "America holds as its holiest book. … If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."
The post generated nearly 800 comments on Townhall.com and sparked a tempest in the conservative blogosphere. Many who posted comments called the United States a Christian country and said Muslims are beginning to gain too much influence. Others wrote about the separation of church and state and said the Constitution protects all religions.
Dave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, "The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about."
Colling said Ellison's office has received hundreds of "very bigoted and racist" e-mails and phone calls since Prager's column appeared. "The vast majority said, 'You should resign from office if you're not willing to use the book our country was founded on,' " Colling said.
"Requiring somebody to take an oath of office on a religious text that's not his" violates the Constitution, said Kevin Hasson, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Members of the House of Representatives traditionally raise their right hands and are sworn in together on the floor of the chamber. The ritual sometimes seen as the swearing-in is actually a ceremonial photo op with the speaker of the House that usually involves a Bible.
"They can bring in whatever they want," says Fred Beuttler, deputy historian of the House.
Prager, who is Jewish, wrote that no Mormon elected official has "demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon." But Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, carried a volume of Mormon scriptures that included the Bible and the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in ceremony in 1997.
Prager, who hosts a radio talk show, could not be reached for comment.
DOWNLOAD THE LATEST ISSUE OF The Last Reel: http://www.mediafire.com/?jdsqazrjzdt
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
A) it's not really news worthy
America has no holiest book even if 85% of individuals hold the bible as theirs.
To deny one to swear on his holiest book because it is not the bible would be far more unamerican.
I don't really know that it has to be done to begin with, it's all ceremonious.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Easy buddy. By "they" I'm sure you are refering to the small contingent of conservatives on this board, which I proudly consider myself. This should be one issue where both left and right agree.
I don't even think they should use a religious doctrine when swearing in a government representitive. They should use a copy of the constitution. That is what they are swearing to uphold.
That being said, I'm not really sure they should be using religious documents in the swearing-in process.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
This honestly makes me sick to my stomach. How does this undermine American culture?? If anything, his swearing on a Quran should be symbolic of America's "tolerance" for people of all religions.
"America's holiest book" - America shouldn't have holy books! Its supposed to be a fucking secular country! What happened to a seperation of church and state?
And what is the point of swearing on something you don't believe in? It makes the swearing totally meaningless!
Fuck.
Exactly. There is no reason to use any book, and that whole tradition should disappear. Also, the placing-the-hand-on-a-bible-swearing-in is ceremonial. The official one is a mass swearing-in, and nobody touches any book.
I'm glad we don't hear much from Prager on these boards. He's a real nutcase.
Well put, especially the first part, couldnt agree more!
"So you would not mind a Satan worshiper swearing by the Satanic Bible or a what if a politician wants to swear on JRR Tolkins Lords of the Rings or Mao's little red book ~ no ? why not ? and despite the wish of the first two liberals who think that it is outdated and provicial I say "so what" who cares what you want ! I want it the way it is and will lobby to have it stay ~ by the way if they had asked O.J. to swear to tell the truth the whole so help him L. Ron Hubbard would you have said "hey thats not right"? or would you have said its his right to swear on any ol book he like its none of my business how he shows that he will follow the rules laid down to assertain someones sincerity?"
"You said everything I wanted to say. I had this suspicion that when Ellis got elected soon after we would hear something about his trying to change something more to his Muslim liking. I worried when he was running that this was the Muslims first step inside the Big door. Now they have one of their own within our government. His campaign was also financed by Islamic terrorist organizations."
"Pledging an oath to elected office by swearing to it with your hand on the bible is one of the traditions of this country. If you can't find it in yourself to complete this simple symbolic act, don't run for office. I too am tired of the bs multicultural hubris exemplified by Ellison's intentions. I live in California and I am frankly tired of my election ballots being printed in 6 different languages."
"IT'S STARTING!!!! I've been saying this over and over but hear goes again: Louis "Calypso Boy" Farakhan said and I quote: "A Muslim is a Muslim, there is no such thing and there never will be American Muslims or Muslim Americans, just as there are no French Muslims or Muslim French just as there are no British or German Muslims, it's either you're a Muslim or you're not".
So Mr. Ellison being a Muslim living in America will not conform-What we do next and how this needs to be dealt with is extremely critical."
"Karl, I read that Ellison was involved with Gangs. Whether his wife claims to be a Christian or not, that does not make him moderate or saved. If he is a Muslim, then she is unequally yoked as the Bible warns against. Ellison must not be allowed to change the book of swearing in or we open a door. Lets See, Larry Flynt gets elected swearing in on Hustler, or one of the Enron Executives get elected and swears in on the SEC Rules book. This is absolute Horse Poop!"
"I don't care if he swears on a Bible or not, (its traditional only, and not a law) but he should not swear on the Koran, a book that advocates the violent spreading of Islam."
"If, Keith Ellison, the muslim, little "m", refuses to take an oath on the Bible, large "B", then he should be refused a seat in the United States House of Representatives, large "U,S,H,and R". This country was not founded on the god, little "g", of islam, little "i", but on the one and only true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that is the God of Judaism, the precursor to Chritianity ushered in by Christ, Himself. To permit Mr. Ellison to do anything other than take the oath on the Bible, would be a mockery to this nation, it's government and everything it stands for, just a further slide down the slippery slope."
Completely wrong. They were hardliners wanting more strict of an interpretation of the bible.
The bible is american tradition....keep it
This can only be the case if we offically designate a national religion, which is at least a few years off.
Article VI clearly states "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
from my window to yours
i second that. if we have to swear on something, why not use the constitution from now on? we can avoid this religious bickering and maybe it would encourage some of our reps to actually read that document they're supposed to be upholding... i can dream cant i?
you're a hypocrite. i bet you'd be screaming bloody murder if we removed under god from the pledge. but guess what? it was added in 1950... it was not in the original "tradition." but im guessing you didnt have a problem with that change of american tradition. you dont give a damn about tradition, you care about making sure your religion runs the government.
I told you so.
This is why you have to love america...because well probaly allow this to happen. Imagine if this guy was in a muslim country...they would have taken his head off.
Good points all around.